RESUMEN
Purpose: Despite the importance of patient satisfaction (PS) on healthcare outcomes, the factors that influence PS in radiation oncology remain unexplored. This study assesses the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) on PS in radiation oncology, using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) as a measure of SES. Methods: This single-institution cross-sectional study used the National Research Council (NRC) PS survey at four radiation oncology sites from 2021 to 2023. SES was measured using ADI data from the Neighborhood Atlas. Univariate (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses were conducted on recommendation scores (0-10 scale, with 9 or higher indicating a likelihood to recommend). Results: In our analysis of 7,501 survey responses, most patients were female (55.3 %), had curative treatment intent (81.5 %), and were diagnosed with breast cancer (30.4 %), with most being follow-up visits (69.0 %). Average scores for state and national ADI were 3.94 and 50.75, respectively. UVA identified factors such as curative intent (OR 1.68, p < 0.001), follow-up visits (OR 1.69, p < 0.001), and breast cancer diagnosis (OR 1.42, p = 0.018) as enhancing the likelihood of recommending the facility or provider. Those with a national ADI above the mean showed lower propensity to recommend the facility (OR 0.81, p = 0.050) or provider (OR 0.71, p = 0.002). MVA confirmed the significance of national ADI on provider recommendations (OR 0.730, p = 0.005) but not facility recommendations (OR 0.832, p = 0.089). Conclusion: Patients facing higher SES disadvantages are less inclined to recommend their healthcare provider. These results highlight the role of SES in PS assessments and advocate for further investigation into how SES impacts PS and patient-provider relationships.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Radiation therapy simulation is an excellent time for patient education. We implemented a comprehensive personalized patient experience-focused (PX) teaching session at the time of simulation and assessed its effect using patient satisfaction scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From February 2016 to June 2018, a single PX-trained radiation therapy therapist met patients at simulation to address and resolve all treatment-related questions. Results from a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services approved voluntary patient satisfaction tool were used to assess the effect of this intervention, using tools the patients received during the on-treatment period. Scores from patients contacted by the PX therapist were compared with those of noncontacted patients. RESULTS: For the survey, 1369 patients were contacted (median contact duration, 23 minutes; range, 0-117). Of 732 surveys submitted during this time, 98 were from on-treatment patients (69 contacted, 29 not contacted). The majority of contacted patients and survey responders were women (64% and 62%, respectively), patients with breast cancer (38%, 41%), and patients who had received curative therapy (82%, 69%). Scores from contacted patients were significantly higher for 10 of the 17 questions (registration helpfulness, P = .03; registration wait time, P = .048; facility way finding, P = .03; facility cleanliness, P = .01; treatment staff skill, P = .03; treatment staff concern for questions, P = .003; response to concerns, P = .01; staff worked together, P = .01; overall rating of care, P = .01; and likelihood of recommending care, P = .04) and 4 of the 5 domains (registration, P = .04; facility, P = .03; personal issues, P = .02; overall assessment, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Contact by a PX therapist was associated with higher patient satisfaction scores, including areas specifically addressed by the PX teaching session (concerns for questions, response to concerns) as well as other areas (cleanliness, registration wait time).